italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Thought it was £19M in total to get the Ricoh on a 250 year lease and the bond was £35M.
Thought it was £19M in total to get the Ricoh on a 250 year lease and the bond was £35M.Really? How much was owed to the council at the point Wasps took over compared to how much Wasps owe on the bond issue?
They have roughly doubled the debt, half is the council loan they took over & half is money Wasps raised to enact their plans, upwards of £30M in total.Really? How much was owed to the council at the point Wasps took over compared to how much Wasps owe on the bond issue?
No they purchased both the council and Higgs share for £2.77m each. They then extended the lease for £1m. So a total of £6.54m.Thought it was £19M in total to get the Ricoh on a 250 year lease and the bond was £35M.
No they purchased both the council and Higgs share for £2.77m each. They then extended the lease for £1m. So a total of £6.54m.
But we're not talking about how much they paid we're talking about the debt.
At the point Wasps took over ACL the debt was £14.4m of which they council paid back £13.4m. I suspect the £1m for the lease extension was actually repaying the loan but the council were concerned about the legal consequences of giving away a 200 year lease for nothing.
Currently the debt is £35m, more than double. Hence saying Wasps cleared the debt is misleading. Yes they cleared the debt to the council but they now owe far more than before.
.
Really? How much was owed to the council at the point Wasps took over compared to how much Wasps owe on the bond issue?
InvestedSo of the 35m finance they raised what will they have spent? 19.94? (6.54+13.4)
Will they be sat on the 15m or have they invested that in the playing side, stadium upgrades?
Yes they are sat on it or yes they have invested it?
SorryYes they are sat on it or yes they have invested it?
They've had to take out an overdraft and had a loan put in by the owner which doesn't sound like they're sat on a huge pile of money.Will they be sat on the 15m or have they invested that in the playing side, stadium upgrades?
Your right but its the same as when Fisher says we are debt free.You will need to see where the difference has gone.
Some went back to the owners to pay of his loan.
The rest appears to be the cost of relocating and improvement in the Ricoh facilities.
It appears on paper that this has increased the Ricoh value and hence Assets are higher than liabilities.
In my limited knowledge.Your right but its the same as when Fisher says we are debt free.
The two Owners work in exactly the same way they lie about everything don't much care who they distroy as long as they make a few quid should ban these companies and put all their owners in jail.
Thieving bastard.
The Ricoh used to be a football ground until those wankers Wasps turned up. So why would the Butts be called anything other than a rugger ground if only rugger was played there?
That's not a planning issue. That's a restriction the council tried, and failed, to have added to the BPA lease when ownership was transferred recently to Jon Sharp / CRFC.Indeed but as I pointed out to FP yesterday the Ricoh has always been a multi use site without conditions on the site for type of sport from planning to completion. Nothing has changed because Wasps have rocked up. Unlike the BPA. where there are conditions on site usage and the wording on this application could deliberately reflect said conditions.
Quote from the council in the CT today
So doesn't sound like the "active not passive support from Coventry City Council" Fisher spoke about. Why can't the football club get the same level of assistance Wasps do with any plans. When it was them building at Higgs there were emails from the council talking about how they could ensure the application passed.
Come on, you have to be blind not to see the council fall over themselves to assist Wasps and do the very minimum they can legally get away with when it comes to us.It would probably help if the club submitted an application thus formalising the process at which point the planning office is bound by law to assist. As always Dave you have to put the horse before the cart.
From memory of their bond document about 10 m was to repay wasps owner's loanSo of the 35m finance they raised what will they have spent? 19.94? (6.54+13.4)
Will they be sat on the 15m or have they invested that in the playing side, stadium upgrades?
That's not a planning issue. That's a restriction the council tried, and failed, to have added to the BPA lease when ownership was transferred recently to Jon Sharp / CRFC.
It's a historical condition that Chris Millerchip had imposed when CRFC first took over the site to protect it against development. Does the condition still stand since the rights were transferred to JS is the real question. My understanding is that the condition is attached to the site not the lease holder but if you know better I'm all ears.
Come on, you have to be blind not to see the council fall over themselves to assist Wasps and do the very minimum they can legally get away with when it comes to us.
It's a historical condition that Chris Millerchip had imposed when CRFC first took over the site to protect it against development. Does the condition still stand since the rights were transferred to JS is the real question. My understanding is that the condition is attached to the site not the lease holder but if you know better I'm all ears.
The original condition had to be removed as it forbid all football, not that the condition was ever enforced. If the condition was still in place Cov Utd couldn't play there. It was when the condition was being altered that CCC wanted to add a clause to prevent professional football. When that was made public they quickly changed their tune and claimed they were never actually going to do that.It's a historical condition that Chris Millerchip had imposed when CRFC first took over the site to protect it against development. Does the condition still stand since the rights were transferred to JS is the real question. My understanding is that the condition is attached to the site not the lease holder but if you know better I'm all ears.
You will need to see where the difference has gone.
Some went back to the owners to pay off his loan.
The rest appears to be the cost of relocating, playing squad and improvement in the Ricoh facilities.
It appears on paper that this has increased the Ricoh value and hence Assets are higher than liabilities.
Come on, you have to be blind not to see the council fall over themselves to assist Wasps and do the very minimum they can legally get away with when it comes to us.
I thought Wasps haven't had the valuation done, and therefore it is not known whether the assets outstrip the liabilities.
We can all make presumptions, I am sure yours are far more pro than mine, but at the end of the day the fact of its value is currently unconfirmed.
(If there is a current valuation I am happy to pointed to it)
Yes they do but why is that again ?
Maybe something to with Sisu owning the club and the stunts they have pulled, just a hunch!
The only chance we have of the council ever being back on side is once Sisu are gone, its not rocket science.
If that's the attitude then it's also not rocket science to suggest that you're facing the real possibility of the club leaving the town, tumbling further into the abyss or folding entirely - perhaps all three! Maybe that's OK for you if it's the price of getting rid of SISU. but I'd rather find an alternative.
SISU aren't the only side here who have pulled stunts - where does it get us if they don't at least start talking?
The condition about not playing professional football at the BPA? That has never been in place - the council tried to get it added when discussions about a ground share with CCFC became known. This is a matter of public record, SBT.
EXCLUSIVE: This leaked email reveals council bid to block Coventry City F.C Butts groundshare
The original condition had to be removed as it forbid all football, not that the condition was ever enforced. If the condition was still in place Cov Utd couldn't play there. It was when the condition was being altered that CCC wanted to add a clause to prevent professional football. When that was made public they quickly changed their tune and claimed they were never actually going to do that.
So you prefer the slow death.
You should realize the following by now.
Sisu are only interested in two things selling Ryton for housing and JR2 !
As proved on numerous occaisions they don't care about CCFC.
Once they are finally gone will we be able to rebuild. But untill then we will continue on this endless road of decline.
Sounds like you'd kill the patient to cure the disease. You've realised that SISU aren't going anywhere at the moment, right?
Well then there's even less excuses for TF, JS and anyone else involved to not get the ball rolling is there.
The finance's are in place we're told, plans have been drawn we're told and apparently there is no conditions in place to stop us playing at the site. What's stopping them getting the ball rolling? Other than themselves?
I thought Wasps haven't had the valuation done, and therefore it is not known whether the assets outstrip the liabilities.
We can all make presumptions, I am sure yours are far more pro than mine, but at the end of the day the fact of its value is currently unconfirmed.
(If there is a current valuation I am happy to pointed to it)
A fantasy as much as Fisher's new stadium. Why would Wasps give us more income when they need every single penny themselves?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?